The government justifies scrapping it because, it says, the policy failed its objectives, was poorly targeted and money is needed elsewhere. Much of the commentary has seized on the phrase ‘‘policy failure’’.
This is a trap for progressive governments. These governments know that universalising social supports is the best way to improve people’s lives.
That is repeatedly evidenced in the outcomes of older people with universal superannuation. Universal superannuation is a good in and of itself because it provides financial support without judgement.
But progressive governments weaken at the political outcry that comes with suggesting universalisation anywhere else in our welfare system. That is the policy failure.
The fees-free scheme should have been implemented to support students to complete their studies with less debt. Less debt for graduates is good.
The student loan scheme that defers their extensive debt is not good. It is a literal drag on our economy overall and on the lives of graduates.
The student loan burden is hardest on those training for highly skilled, desperately needed but poorly paid professions: nursing, teaching, social work. Fees-free helped reduce their debt burden.
That is a good outcome itself. It did not need to also solve participation equity to be worth introducing or keeping.
Advocacy for fees-free as a policy to reduce the debt burden and value tertiary education as a public good would have been a clearer and more honest policy position. National’s inevitable cancellation would then have been justified on its actual grounds of not wanting to support students, rather than couched in a failure of policy outcomes.
Tying the policy to participation gave an incoming National government an excuse to get rid of it, even though it achieved good outcomes for students.
What then of the ways to improve participation by disadvantaged groups in tertiary education?
Research on which the failure argument is based has much more to say about that. It says that improved enrolment for disadvantaged students is not just a question of money.
Academic preparation, doing well and being supported in school matters. So does good information about options, including deferred study.
And living costs matter. Being able to pay rent, food, power and study costs while often living miles from home is an important economic decision for a student.
Policies that do not target these factors alongside reducing tuition fees are not going to improve equity outcomes. A year of fees relief cannot address other constraints that are as important as fees in the decision to study.
The research also said that where the labour market was strong, disadvantaged students may wisely choose employment over study. When money is tight, practical decisions prevail.
If a young person is not suited to academic study, then paid work and apprenticeships are attractive options. That is not a policy failure. That is a practical economic choice.
Ms Willis noted that with New Zealand in fiscal deficit, ‘‘we must ensure every dollar is spent where it can deliver the most benefit’’. Sure, assuming that a benefit is measured correctly.
Reducing a future nurse’s debt by $10,000 is a benefit. That is a public good that no government should threaten, let alone deny.
The research report’s final comment is this: designing effective policy requires aligning instruments with the constraints they are intended to address. Fees-free was a blunt tool applied to a precise job.
Rather than scrap it, a wise government would add the policies that address those other barriers, such as increasing student allowances, reducing living costs and systematically reducing the debt burden.
Doing so would show that our country values every student’s contribution to our community now and for the future.
• Associate Prof Metiria Stanton Turei is a law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party co-leader.
